Mercer Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 In fairness den the wages to income ratio was an issue John Williams was actively working on during his last season or two with us. The wage bill might not look too pleasant now, but then it hasn't for a few years., though I understand the point you are making regarding the other fellows posts. If the players are allowed to move on for nothing during January then I don't feel either can consider themselves to hard done by. Will miss Salgado though, and it does put a black cloud over his time here. But tough decisions have to be made at this time. It's dead simple - IMO, absolutely gross mismanagement has resulted in this financial mess. Only folk responsible are Venky's & Kean. There can be no excuses.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
thenodrog Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 when venkys tookover plenty on here slated me when i cliamed they had no money,well 12 months down the line i have been proved right.the problem is how do we get rid of them Any credibility you may have had on here once of a day waggy was shot to pieces by the infantile stupidity you displayed with your long running tirade against 'Lardarse'. Done ever so well since you had your prayers answered haven't we?.... I don't think. It's dead simple - IMO, absolutely gross mismanagement has resulted in this financial mess. Only folk responsible are Venky's & Kean. There can be no excuses. You are forgetting the evil puppet master who is pulling all their strings through his own personal greed.
JAL Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Roberts admits to being frozen out at Blackburn Rovers Now Roberts claims will further concerns among Rovers fans about the club’s financial position, with two experienced players not available for selection at a time when they are lacking just that. More lies from Kean. Sorry Den but its time to get shut. Maybe the communication could be a lot better just like the second half substitutions today.
blueboy3333 Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 The Sporting Intel article posted earlier suggests that Robinson is not injured as the club have said (ditto Roberts & Salgado) so we can assume he's off. The lies coming out of Ewood are a disgrace and can't be doing much for team morale.
jodrell Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Does anyone know if the rumours are true if K..n has had more than one contract review? and the January sales are bigger than we think?
DavidMailsTightPerm Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Saw that one John. Makes for interesting reading. As long as the 3 out arent robinson, samba and hoilett it's not too bad. In all honesty I expect us to lose a few players, Roberts salgado Andrews and Hoilett possibly. I think most people would agree with those four going. Three of them will be on good salaries - and Hoilett could realise a reasonable transfer fee (though I would prefer him to sign the much promised new contract). I wonder if the need to release certain players is more about keeping the wage bill in check - which is an on going issue. Loans - with an agreed option to buy - are our best hope. That way we can afford the quality necessary to keep us up (e.g. Jermaine Jones) - but don't saddle us with big wages if we don't.
Jock Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Players union getting interested in our shabby owners/management treatment of the players. FFS people wake up, we're being asset stripped.
booth Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Players union getting interested in our shabby owners/management treatment of the players. FFS people wake up, we're being asset stripped. Would be interesting if a group of players decided to speak out as a unit. Salgado, Roberts, Robinson, Pedersen, Andrews (whose loan spell ends this week doesn't it?) are ones that I can think of that are not happy with what's going on. Some have said that other players have said some off the record comments too.
Parsonblue Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I think the Salgado and Roberts situation shows exactly why Kean is still in the job. What other manager would put up with the owners saying that certain players cannot play in a particular game because it might cost them money? Could anybody really see Big Sam or Hughes being told by Desai you can't pick so and so anymore? No wonder we are a national laughing stock.
Kelbo Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I think the Salgado and Roberts situation shows exactly why Kean is still in the job. What other manager would put up with the owners saying that certain players cannot play in a particular game because it might cost them money? Could anybody really see Big Sam or Hughes being told by Desai you can't pick so and so anymore? No wonder we are a national laughing stock. Agree entirely, thats why Benitez turned the job down!!
JC4LAB Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Tried to get a copy ofthe Rovers latest accounts from Companies house but they havent been filed. They are overdue which is irregular..unless we trade under a different name.or whatever..Anyone know whats happening.
Paul Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 To be fair Glen the 31st was a Saturday followed by Sunday and a public holiday. There is nothing to suggest the accounts haven't been filed and are awaiting action by Companies House. Most filings are electronic these days but I guess CP still look them over before publication. I can't think of any reason for this in Rovers case. The accounts have been prepared, the losses are as reported in the LT and I'm sure the only reason they haven't been filed is the way the dates have fallen this year. It was probably similar under the Trust but no one was interested to look! Tried to get a copy ofthe Rovers latest accounts from Companies house but they havent been filed. They are overdue which is irregular..unless we trade under a different name.or whatever..Anyone know whats happening. Hope that helps?
den Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I think the Salgado and Roberts situation shows exactly why Kean is still in the job. What other manager would put up with the owners saying that certain players cannot play in a particular game because it might cost them money? Could anybody really see Big Sam or Hughes being told by Desai you can't pick so and so anymore? No wonder we are a national laughing stock. It would be a short conversation. "Do you want me to keep the club in the Premier League or not? Because if you don't, then I'm off."
longsiders1882 Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Lets just cut to the chase eh folks....we're fooked!! Always better when somebody cuts to the chase and sums up in one brief sentence what most people are thinking. They didn't, if you read the accounts correctly Venky's London Ltd made both injections into the club. Up until the accounts of venky's london ltd are released we do not know where this money came from. I could make 2 viewpoints that about where venkys london ltd got the capital to inject into the club, through debt and the the other is directly from the raos. To be honest the accounts of the club are not the issue, the accounts of venkys london ltd are, as the debts of venkys london ltd are also secured against the assets of the club. Not on the same scale as your current scenario but Burnley fans have been trying to get to the bottom of who actually owns our ground and gets a nice healthy return on their investment by way of a rather large annual rent (whilst the club still maintains the ground!). The trail leads to a BVI registered company and then stops. That worries me greatly. In your case the more layers there are to the onion the harder it gets to work out what is happening whilst, conversely, the easier it can be to hide things. That second set of accounts could be illuminating.
47er Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I think most people would agree with those four going. Three of them will be on good salaries - and Hoilett could realise a reasonable transfer fee (though I would prefer him to sign the much promised new contract). Yesterday you were looking forward to him returning fit for us and I told you he'd be off!
Kelbo Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Always better when somebody cuts to the chase and sums up in one brief sentence what most people are thinking. Not on the same scale as your current scenario but Burnley fans have been trying to get to the bottom of who actually owns our ground and gets a nice healthy return on their investment by way of a rather large annual rent (whilst the club still maintains the ground!). The trail leads to a BVI registered company and then stops. That worries me greatly. In your case the more layers there are to the onion the harder it gets to work out what is happening whilst, conversely, the easier it can be to hide things. That second set of accounts could be illuminating. As always, you are pretty damn right, the second set would provide some of the answers we are looking for, yet in my opinion, not all!
JC4LAB Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Looks like the rovers accounts have finally been filed at Comnpanies house but wont be availaible for download for a few days yet..
John Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Wonder who this source is - back when Kean got appointed, Harry Harris kept breaking these exclusive stories regarding us...... a source with impeccable connections to the turmoil facing Kean and Rovers has alerted ESPNsoccernet to the problems ahead for the club's manager in the January transfer window.
Paul Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Looks like the rovers accounts have finally been filed at Comnpanies house but wont be availaible for download for a few days yet.. Ah ha now the fun will really begin! There is some very interesting reading other than the numbers.
rovers11 Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Ah ha now the fun will really begin! There is some very interesting reading other than the numbers. Interesting. Any clues?
daveoftherovers Posted January 6, 2012 Posted January 6, 2012 Interesting. Any clues? I think Paul may be referring to the detail that is incorporated into the results and the financial assessment or scoring that would be derided from them.
allanncd Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I just don't understand the hysteria by so many on this MB that Rovers are in any danger of going bust even if relegated (as does seem likely). In my opinion most of the senior players are easy to sell and, after taking account of the relegation clauses applicable to most, if not all, players the wage bill should be comfortably covered by the first year's parachute payment of £16m. The fees received for the squad will enable all the borrowings of c£30m to be repaid. Some may disagree but the following fees should be easily achieved -Robinson £2m, Samba 8m (net of sell-on), Dann 3, Givet 1, Olsson 3, N'Zonzi 4, Formica 2, Yakubu 2, Hoilett 5 - a total of £30m. Other high earners are out of contract - Salgado, Dunn, Andrews and Grella. The remaining squad would need to be bolstered by frees and loans but would still be the basis of a presentable line-up for the Championship - Bunn, Lowe, Henley, Hanley, Petrovic, Pedersen, Vukcevic, Rochina, Goodwillie plus Morris, Kean, Blackman,Slew and Linganzi.
yoda Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I just don't understand the hysteria by so many on this MB that Rovers are in any danger of going bust even if relegated (as does seem likely). In my opinion most of the senior players are easy to sell and, after taking account of the relegation clauses applicable to most, if not all, players the wage bill should be comfortably covered by the first year's parachute payment of £16m. The fees received for the squad will enable all the borrowings of c£30m to be repaid. Some may disagree but the following fees should be easily achieved -Robinson £2m, Samba 8m (net of sell-on), Dann 3, Givet 1, Olsson 3, N'Zonzi 4, Formica 2, Yakubu 2, Hoilett 5 - a total of £30m. Other high earners are out of contract - Salgado, Dunn, Andrews and Grella. The remaining squad would need to be bolstered by frees and loans but would still be the basis of a presentable line-up for the Championship - Bunn, Lowe, Henley, Hanley, Petrovic, Pedersen, Vukcevic, Rochina, Goodwillie plus Morris, Kean, Blackman,Slew and Linganzi. Have you been watching Alice in Wonderland over the Xmas period?
allanncd Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 Answer the question not just make snide meaningless comments, please. Can you understand accounts - are you a qualified accountant or do you disagree with the figures I have put forward?
Hasta Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I just don't understand the hysteria by so many on this MB that Rovers are in any danger of going bust even if relegated (as does seem likely). In my opinion most of the senior players are easy to sell and, after taking account of the relegation clauses applicable to most, if not all, players the wage bill should be comfortably covered by the first year's parachute payment of £16m. The fees received for the squad will enable all the borrowings of c£30m to be repaid. Some may disagree but the following fees should be easily achieved -Robinson £2m, Samba 8m (net of sell-on), Dann 3, Givet 1, Olsson 3, N'Zonzi 4, Formica 2, Yakubu 2, Hoilett 5 - a total of £30m. Other high earners are out of contract - Salgado, Dunn, Andrews and Grella. The remaining squad would need to be bolstered by frees and loans but would still be the basis of a presentable line-up for the Championship - Bunn, Lowe, Henley, Hanley, Petrovic, Pedersen, Vukcevic, Rochina, Goodwillie plus Morris, Kean, Blackman,Slew and Linganzi. Firstly the squad remaining that you have outlined above would struggle to stay in the Championship. Secondly, if the mortgage from Barclays was secured on all future income, and they are already demanding the £10m, what if they gobble up all of the parachute payments to cover the loan as has been widely reported???
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.